Evaluation of dose differences between intracavitary applicators for cervical brachytherapy using knowledge-based models.

PURPOSE: Currently, there is a lack of patient-specific tools to guide brachytherapy planning and applicator choice for cervical cancer. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of organ-at-risk (OAR) dose predictions using knowledge-based intracavitary models, and the use of these models and clinical data to determine the dosimetric differences of tandem-and-ring (T&R) and tandem-and-ovoids (T&O) applicators. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Knowledge-based models, which predict organ D2cc, were trained on 77/75 cases and validated on 32/38 for T&R/T&O applicators. Model performance was quantified using ΔD2cc=D2cc,actual-D2cc,predicted, with standard deviation (σ(ΔD2cc)) representing precision. Model-predicted applicator dose differences were determined by applying T&O models to T&R cases, and vice versa, and compared to clinically-achieved D2cc differences. Applicator differences were assessed using a Student's t-test (p < 0.05 significant). RESULTS: Validation T&O/T&R model precision was 0.65/0.55 Gy, 0.55/0.38 Gy, and 0.43/0.60 Gy for bladder, rectum and sigmoid, respectively, and similar to training. When applying T&O/T&R models to T&R/T&O cases, bladder, rectum and sigmoid D2cc values in EQD2 were on average 5.69/2.62 Gy, 7.31/6.15 Gy and 3.65/0.69 Gy lower for T&R, with similar HRCTV volume and coverage. Clinical data also showed lower T&R OAR doses, with mean EQD2 D2cc deviations of 0.61 Gy, 7.96 Gy (p < 0.01) and 5.86 Gy (p < 0.01) for bladder, rectum and sigmoid. CONCLUSIONS: Accurate knowledge-based dose prediction models were developed for two common intracavitary applicators. These models could be beneficial for standardizing and improving the quality of brachytherapy plans. Both models and clinical data suggest that significant OAR sparing can be achieved with T&R over T&O applicators, particularly for the rectum.

A practical method to quantify knowledge-based DVH prediction accuracy and uncertainty with reference cohorts.

The adoption of knowledge-based dose-volume histogram (DVH) prediction models for assessing organ-at-risk (OAR) sparing in radiotherapy necessitates quantification of prediction accuracy and uncertainty. Moreover, DVH prediction error bands should be readily interpretable as confidence intervals in which to find a percentage of clinically acceptable DVHs. In the event such DVH error bands are not available, we present an independent error quantification methodology using a local reference cohort of high-quality treatment plans, and apply it to two DVH prediction models, ORBIT-RT and RapidPlan, trained on the same set of 90 volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans. Organ-at-risk DVH predictions from each model were then generated for a separate set of 45 prostate VMAT plans. Dose-volume histogram predictions were then compared to their analogous clinical DVHs to define prediction errors V c l i n , i - V p r e d , i (ith plan), from which prediction bias µ, prediction error variation σ, and root-mean-square error R M S E pred ≡ 1 N ∑ i V c l i n , i - V p r e d , i 2 ≅ σ 2 + µ 2 could be calculated for the cohort. The empirical R M S E pred was then contrasted to the model-provided DVH error estimates. For all prostate OARs, above 50% Rx dose, ORBIT-RT µ and σ were comparable to or less than those of RapidPlan. Above 80% Rx dose, µ < 1% and σ < 3-4% for both models. As a result, above 50% Rx dose, ORBIT-RT R M S E pred was below that of RapidPlan, indicating slightly improved accuracy in this cohort. Because µ ≈ 0, R M S E pred is readily interpretable as a canonical standard deviation σ, whose error band is expected to correctly predict 68% of normally distributed clinical DVHs. By contrast, RapidPlan's provided error band, although described in literature as a standard deviation range, was slightly less predictive than R M S E pred (55-70% success), while the provided ORBIT-RT error band was confirmed to resemble an interquartile range (40-65% success) as described. Clinicians can apply this methodology using their own institutions' reference cohorts to (a) independently assess a knowledge-based model's predictive accuracy of local treatment plans, and (b) interpret from any error band whether further OAR dose sparing is likely attainable.

ORBIT-RT: A Real-Time, Open Platform for Knowledge-Based Quality Control of Radiotherapy Treatment Planning.

PURPOSE: Access to knowledge-based treatment plan quality control has been hindered by the complexity of developing models and integration with different treatment planning systems (TPS). Online Real-time Benchmarking Information Technology for RadioTherapy (ORBIT-RT) provides a free, web-based platform for knowledge-based dose estimation that can be used by clinicians worldwide to benchmark the quality of their radiotherapy plans. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The ORBIT-RT platform was developed to satisfy four primary design criteria: web-based access, TPS independence, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act compliance, and autonomous operation. ORBIT-RT uses a cloud-based server to automatically anonymize a user's Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine for RadioTherapy (DICOM-RT) file before upload and processing of the case. From there, ORBIT-RT uses established knowledge-based dose-volume histogram (DVH) estimation methods to autonomously create DVH estimations for the uploaded DICOM-RT. ORBIT-RT performance was evaluated with an independent validation set of 45 volumetric modulated arc therapy prostate plans with two key metrics: (i) accuracy of the DVH estimations, as quantified by their error, DVHclinical - DVHprediction and (ii) time to process and display the DVH estimations on the ORBIT-RT platform. RESULTS: ORBIT-RT organ DVH predictions show < 1% bias and 3% error uncertainty at doses > 80% of prescription for the prostate validation set. The ORBIT-RT extensions require 3.0 seconds per organ to analyze. The DICOM upload, data transfer, and DVH output display extend the entire system workflow to 2.5-3 minutes. CONCLUSION: ORBIT-RT demonstrated fast and fully autonomous knowledge-based feedback on a web-based platform that takes only anonymized DICOM-RT as input. The ORBIT-RT system can be used for real-time quality control feedback that provides users with objective comparisons for final plan DVHs.

A knowledge-based organ dose prediction tool for brachytherapy treatment planning of patients with cervical cancer.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to explore knowledge-based organ-at-risk dose estimation for intracavitary brachytherapy planning for cervical cancer. Using established external-beam knowledge-based dose-volume histogram (DVH) estimation methods, we sought to predict bladder, rectum, and sigmoid D2cc for tandem and ovoid treatments. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 136 patients with loco-regionally advanced cervical cancer treated with 456 (356:100 training:validation ratio) CT-based tandem and ovoid brachytherapy fractions were analyzed. Single fraction prescription doses were 5.5-8 Gy with dose criteria for the high-risk clinical target volume, bladder, rectum, and sigmoid. DVH estimations were obtained by subdividing training set organs-at-risk into high-risk clinical target volume boundary distance subvolumes and computing cohort-averaged differential DVHs. Full DVH estimation was then performed on the training and validation sets. Model performance was quantified by ΔD2cc = D2cc(actual)-D2cc(predicted) (mean and standard deviation). ΔD2cc between training and validation sets were compared with a Student's t test (p < 0.01 significant). Categorical variables (physician, fraction-number, total fractions, and case complexity) that might explain model variance were examined using an analysis of variance test (Bonferroni-corrected p < 0.01 threshold). RESULTS: Training set deviations were bladder ΔD2cc = -0.04 ± 0.61 Gy, rectum ΔD2cc = 0.02 ± 0.57 Gy, and sigmoid ΔD2cc = -0.05 ± 0.52 Gy. Model predictions on validation set did not statistically differ: bladder ΔD2cc = -0.02 ± 0.46 Gy (p = 0.80), rectum ΔD2cc = -0.007 ± 0.47 Gy (p = 0.53), and sigmoid ΔD2cc = -0.07 ± 0.47 Gy (p = 0.70). The only significant categorical variable was the attending physician for bladder and rectum ΔD2cc. CONCLUSION: A simple boundary distance-driven knowledge-based DVH estimation exhibited promising results in predicting critical brachytherapy dose metrics. Future work will examine the utility of these predictions for quality control and automated brachytherapy planning.